Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tl00113)

Tom Robertson (In Theos-L 747)
>It is natural for men to dominate women, since they are stronger,
>both physically and volitionally.

Tom (Theos-L 748):
>Masculinity is active and dominant.  Feminity is passive and submissive.
>All individuals are mixtures of the two.  Men are generally predominantly
>masculine, and women are generally predominantly femine.

TTT:
Sigh.....here we go again.   In your sexist viewpoint, you are saying
that men are more volitional and dominant, and that women are passive
and submissive.  What causes the volition to live?  What makes life
worth living is when we love and are being loved; when we are kind to
others and are being treated with kindness; when we have faith in
something, someone or some situation, even if it's not clear what the
truth or logic is; when we are enthusiastic about anything; and when we
are blissfully happy and satisfied.  These are all emotions that create
volition.  Thus, if women are more emotional than men, then they must be
more volitional...or...if men are more volitional than women, then they
must be more emotional.  Look at the growing percentages of households
headed by women.  If it doesn't take volition to run a household, work a
full time job and raise children, I don't know what it takes.
Domination, in a positive or negative sense, takes many forms.  One can
be artistically superior, verbally superior, physically superior, etc.
With such broad areas of domination, how can you even argue that
masculinity is dominant?

Tom:
>You have responded in a predominantly feminine way, not
>only in how emotional as opposed to rational it was, but also in that you
>emphasize diversity and uniqueness more than you do universality and
>similarities, an approach that discourages, if not condemns, generalizations
>in the name of opposing prejudice, not realizing how prone to prejudice _it_
>is.

TTT:
Say what?  Please use logic in this.

Tom:
>You imply that sexism is the belief that men and women are not identical.
>If that is its definition, then I hope I am considered to be sexist, since that
>would mean that I have been understood.  Assuming that men and women
>are identical, then it directly follows that, in many ways, if not every way,
>one is better than the other.

TTT:
Yes, Tom, you have been understood to be sexist.  I don't think you
understand what you are talking about.  You are a sexist not because you
believe that men and women are not identical.  They are not.  You are a
sexist because you believe that Yang is better than Yin and thus should
dominate.

Tom:
>I do not have to be personally acquainted with most women to see general
>tendencies, nor would they all have to have told me anything.  A high degree
>of accuracy can be gained from small samples.  It can be mathematically
>demonstrated, for example, that a random poll of 1000 people or so gives
>a reasonably accurate view of what 260 million people think.

TTT:
A poll can be twisted to reflect a prejudice.  In fact, a book came out
with numerous examples regarding the manipulation of polls.  Can anyone
recall what is its exact title and author?  Besides, Tom, where is your
poll to support your Logic?  Where is your small sample?  All I read was
a lot of personal prejudice, and an inflexible and illogical viewpoint.
You could save yourself the extra typing by writing in playground terms,
"Boys are strong, girls are weak, boys are strong, girls are weak.  Alan
is a sissy."

Tom (responding to Alan):
>You have responded in a predominantly feminine way, not only in how emotional
>as opposed to rational it was, <snip>...

Alan:
>Simper.  (Your dinner's in the dog).

TTT:
Wow, a huge anomaly!  A predominantly emotional man!  I say we cage him
for a sideshow at Barnum & Bailey's.  He may be one of the men growing
ovaries.  This could be the beginning of the 6th root race!  Alan, you
can give his dinner to me.  I need all the nourishment I can get in
order to get my volition going.  Being of the weaker sex, I have so much
less volition than Tom.

Tom, since you seem to not understand the meaning of Yin and Yang, I'm
reposting this Art House poem for your benefit.  Try to use your emotion
to comprehend it.  If you can't, ask your girlfriend.

yesterday,
in the early evening
we could not have been in more perfect harmony.
yin essence, yang essence
swirl and blend all things into One.

this morning,
I rise lazily
to greet the sun behind the haze.
one wonders about the misty cling ...

discordant notes frustrate the composition.
insistence on explaining the Great Mystery
strikes the stomach; vibrates ...

such a thing lends itself not to explanation.
if it did, it would not be the Great Mystery.

TTT S=o)